INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Jean-François Bellis and Porter Elliott, Van Bael & Bellis
substantially increases the time and resources needed to file a merger in the US. United Kingdom The UK’s voluntary notification regime remains “voluntary” in name only, as the “share-of-sup - ply” jurisdictional threshold allows the UK Com - petition and Markets Authority (CMA) significant discretion in deciding which deals it considers to merit review. Envisaged changes to the law, the current government’s priorities on growth and investment, and the CMA’s reaction to the gov - ernment’s steer probably foretell a less assertive approach than was witnessed in the CMA’s post- Brexit heyday. Indeed, the CMA has indicated that it may opt not to investigate certain interna - tional deals that are already being investigated by other authorities, such as those of the EU or US, or where remedies offered in other jurisdic - tions would likely resolve any UK concerns. Still, the CMA remains a force to be reckoned with. Merging parties that overlook the UK as a merger control jurisdiction do so at their peril, especially in the case of deals with a clear UK nexus. Australia While the UK maintains its voluntary filing regime, Australia is joining the vast majority of merger control jurisdictions worldwide that have a mandatory filing requirement and a suspensory regime that makes it illegal to close a transac - tion before the deal has been approved. The new Australian rules go into full effect in Janu - ary 2026, and given the relatively low turnover thresholds, it will be interesting to see how the Australian Competition and Consumer Commis - sion (ACCC) handles what will likely be a huge uptick in the number of notifications.
Other jurisdictions These are only some of the merger control juris - dictions that companies must bear in mind when seeking regulatory approval of their mergers. It is also not unusual for global deals to require notification and approval in countries such as Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea and Turkey, to name just a few. Clearly, the challenges that both in-house and external counsel face on how to obtain merger control approvals as quickly and efficiently as possible remain acute. This makes having a clear guide such as this one all the more essen - tial. Indeed, the Chambers Merger Control 2025 guide provides answers to all the most pressing questions companies and their lawyers face with every notifiable transaction. Filing location For starters, where does the deal need to be filed? This is a crucial question, as there are potentially serious consequences for failing to make a required merger control filing, includ - ing the imposition of heavy fines. Unfortunately, it can be tricky to determine where filings are required in a given case. Although an ever-increasing number of countries have some form of merger control law, there remains very little standardisation, with each merger control regime continuing to have its own test to determine which transactions amount to a notifiable event. Some jurisdictions catch only changes in control, while others also cover certain acquisitions of non-controlling minority stakes. Moreover, every jurisdiction has its own set of fil - ing thresholds based on various factors, such as the parties’ revenues, asset value, market share, and the size of the transaction. An increasing
8
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook